15 Amendments of Christophe GRUDLER related to 2020/2080(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas according to Article 1(a) to Protocol (No 10) on permanent structured cooperation established by Article 42 of the TEU, one of the objectives of PESCO is for the Member States to develop their defence capacbilities more intensively by furthering their national contributions and participation, where appropriate, in multinational forces, the main European equipment programmes, and in the European Defence Agency’s activity;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establish an EU common defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s democratic model, borders and territories; whereas PESCO , alongside the EDF and other EU Defence initiatives constitutes an important step towards achieving the objective of a common defence;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas PESCO was originally conceived as an avant-garde, comprising the Member States willing and able to upgrade their cooperation in defence to a new level of ambition; whereas the fact that there are 25 pMS means that PESCO is at risk of beingust not lead PESCO to be constrained by the ‘lowest common denominator’ approach;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects hasve led to the pMS proposingadoption of 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately address priority shortfalls as identified by the pMS through the Capability Development Plan (CDP) and the Coordinated Annual Defence on Review (CARD); whereas one of these projects has been stopped in order to avoid unnecessary duplication; whereas other projects did not make sufficient progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. whereas the second phase of PESCO is to start in 2021; whereas this second phase shall deliver concrete and significant results which means that a prioritization of projects is necessary;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
R. whereas the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) drivescontributes to defence national planning processes in most casesof several pMS;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence budgets will suffer reductions; whereas paradoxically, several of the currently 47 PESCO projects, if funded accordingly, could strengthen Member States’ preparedness, should another massive public health crisis occur: military mobility – a flagship PESCO project –, the European Medical Command and many other projects in areas related to logistics and transportation, health care, disaster relief and the fight against malicious cyber activities; whereas cutting funding for the strategic capabilities that the EU and its Member States currently lack would also weaken their ability to jointly act against future pandemics and CBRN threats;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the prospect of co- financing certain PESCO projects viaPESCO and the future European Defence Fund (EDF) shas led pMS to multiply their proposals, and despite the fact that this has encouraged exchanges and cooperation, not all proposals necessarily have the EU’s best strategic interest in mindll be mutually reinforcing and interlinkages between them shall be further developed in order to deliver critical capabilities identified under the CDP;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
W. whereas the participation of third countries, such as the UK, in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union, particularly in case of the United KingdomU, noting that this participation can only be exceptional, decided on a case-by-case basis and at the invitation of EU Members States;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
(d) encourage the pMS to switch from a strictly national focus on defence to a European one and to undertake structured efforts to increase the use of European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual pMS alone has the potential to address identified capacity shortfalls; encourage pMS and MS more generally not to reduce their defence spending in the coming years, and especially their financial involvement in European cooperative projects in order to avoid being distanced by other global powers;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point h
Paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ensure that PESCO, is treated as a Union institutions sui generis, as is the case with the European External Action Service (EEAS), which would require amending the Financial Regulation8 in order to include PESCO, with a specific section in the Union budgetincluded with a specific section in the Union budget, which would require amending the Financial Regulation; recognise that Parliament, jointly with the Council, exercises legislative and budgetary functions, as well as functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties; _________________ 8 OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point k a (new)
(ka) formulate innovative incentives to improve the interoperability and deployment of CSDP missions and operations;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m
Paragraph 1 – point m
(m) groupsupport and promote the grouping of PESCO projects into capability clusters and make a distinction between strategically relevant and other projects, keeping in mind the objective of achieving a full-spectrum force package and concentrate their efforts on those having the highest potential to deliver European strategic autonomy;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point n
Paragraph 1 – point n
(n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing clearer definition of compliance benchmarks, and by ensuring that future project proposals must address a specific CDP priority; ensure that any reviews of project progress should be based on clear and transparent criteria, including when co-financed in the framework of EDIDP/future EDF; ensure that such criteria serve as benchmark for all Member States participating in PESCO projects;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point u
Paragraph 1 – point u
(u) clarify or define the link between the governance of PESCO and that of the EDF and toin order to maximise their combined impact; involve Parliament in the ex- post control process when it comes to EDF funding of PESCO projects;